The Dead Mountaineer's Inn by Arkady & Boris Strugatsky #1970Club

❄️ Published in 1970 in Russian, this book is a locked room mystery with a touch of science fiction. It follows a police inspector, Peter Glebsky, who is on vacation to the titular inn, in order to stay away from his job and family. Also staying at the remote inn and ski chalet, a bunch of eccentric people. There is a famous magician, Du Bramstoker, with his nephew Brun - an adolescent with indeterminate sex (what is it, a boy or a girl?). Then there's a physicist Simon Simone, a wealthy man Moses who's perpetually drunk, and his beautiful wife.

❄️ Then strange things start to happen. Small items are missing, but other stuffs appear mysteriously, voices are heard where no one had been. Are those only innocence though annoying pranks, or, as the inn owner indicates, a supernatural manifestation? He seems to believe that the dead mountaineer - whose legend inspired the inn's name - is still present.

❄️ Things then begin to get more serious; a murder, no less! The latest guest who has arrived right before an avalanche blocked the mountain pass, is found murdered in a locked room. Glebsky had no other choice than investigating the crime, albeit reluctantly. The deeper he investigates though, the more he's confused. There are too many strange unrelated things happening, which ones were pranks, and which were true? And who's telling the truth, who's been prankster? Was the murder a usual crime? Or was there aliens involved like what some of the guests have been incredulously insisting?

❄️ This is such an eccentric yet entertaining story. It's weird but funny at the same time. You'll keep wondering whether this is a clever and complex murder mystery, a huge joke, or a science fiction? And my advice if you want to read this book is, don't google or read any synopsis or blurb beforehand. Just read the book with open mind. It will be more fun. Knowing what it is before reading would totally ruin it! All I can say that I had fun reading it. The book was well constructed, and represented the vibes of the 1970s - that's why mystery novels of vintage era are always my favorite, when everything was still simple and, therefore, more meaningful.

Rating: ⭐⭐⭐1/2

Read for:

The 1970 Club

hosted by Simon and Karen

The Seagull by Anton Chekhov

The Seagull is my second Chekhov's play. The Cherry Orchard is the first - and I loved it - and that's why somehow I've expected the first would be, at least, as good as the later. Unfortunayely, I was wrong.

First of all, I don't really like Chekhov's style of focusing on indirect speeches, instead of dramatic actions, in this particular play. If you haven't been familiar with it, it's like when someone wanted to tell you that a character is dead, instead of dramatizing the death scene, he would write a dialog (that is supposed to happen a week after, for instance), casually indicating that that character (X) is dead:

A: "I don't know how we would ever complete this task."
B: "I know, after X's death, I can't seem to handle anything."

You know what I mean, right? I believe it's called 'subtext'. I'm not a fan of it. It makes the play somehow seems vague or dreamy. Add that to the fact that The Seagull is a considerably short play, and, as usual, with its confusing Russian's names and nick names. In short, it's a confusing little piece that I can't really grasp the meaning. What's it all about? I have no clue...

What I remember from the play is, there's a playwright (Konstantin), son of a retired actress, who was desperately trying to make his mother proud of his theatrical talent, but failed. His last attempt was writing and producing an unconventional play - play within play - on a built-in outdoor stage. The audience failed to comprehend his ideas - especially his mother who continuously mocked him. The play was stopped midway, and Konstantin stormed out with humiliation.

Then there's multiple love affairs between the characters. Konstantin loves the actress performed at his play, Nina; but the actress loves another writer, whom is also loved by Konstantin's mother. Meanwhile, Masha loves Konstantin, but she eventually married the schoolmaster who loves her. Meanwhile, Masha's mother is having an affair with a doctor. Really confusing, and with the shortness of the play, I couldn't really relate to their feelings, or even to the main characters.

I haven't talked about the seagull itself. It is an important factor in this play, as it is meant to be a symbol of something - which I didn't get to solve. The gull was shot by Konstantin, and he gave it as a gift to Nina, who was horrified by the sight. Maybe Konstantin isn't really a bad playwright, but he's certainly a bad lover!

All in all, it's not an entertaining play, and now I'm wondering whether I should move on to Chekhov's other major plays? Or should I just bailed on him? What would you recommend?

Rating: 2,5 / 5

Eugene Onegin by Alexander Pushkin: #CCSpin25

Novel in verse has never been my favorite. I prefer the flowing narration in prose which is more soothing to the mind. Reading, anyway, is (for me) more of therapy than challenge. Therefore, I have started Eugene Onegin with much trepidation - I wasn't sure I'm gonna like it, but I'm curious all the same. #CCSpin25 helped me to finally plunged into it. The result? Still didn't enjoy the novel, but I admired the beautiful rhymes Pushkin had woven to narrate a simple yet deep and meaningful tale.

When I said Eugene Onegin is a simple story, I really meant it. The plot is very simple, and there are only four main characters: Eugene Onegin, Tatyana Larina, Vladimir Lensky, and the Narrator - which is the embodiment of Pushkin himself. The simple plot allowed Pushkin to explore the personality if each character. From the opening scene (the dying bed of Onegin's uncle), for example, we know instantly what kind of man Eugene Onegin is:

But God, how deadly dull to sample
sick room attendance night and day
and never stir a foot away!
And the sly baseness, fit to throttle,
of entertaining the half-dead:
one smoothest the pillow down in bed,
and glumly serves the medicine bottle,
and sighs, and asks oneself all through:
"When will the devil come for you?"

I don't think I've ever hated a character as early as in the first page, as I did Onegin! Cold hearted, egotistical, selfish - a young man without any compassion at all! And to think that he inherited his uncle's property in the country after that, enraged me more.

So, the cold hearted Onegin started his "career" as St. Petersburg's dandy; flirting, dancing, partying, until he gets bored. After moving to the country, he gets to know a young romantic but naive poet: Vladimir Lensky. It was Lensky who first brought Onegin to the Larins' - Olga Larina is Lensky's fiancee. Olga's sister, Tatyana - an introverted young girl who loves to read - fell in love with Onegin. She wrote a letter expressing her passionate love to him, but, not only coldly rejected her because he thought marriage is boring, Onegin even scold her for daring to express her feeling to a man.

"You'll love again, but you must teach
your heart some self-restraint; for each
and every man won't understand it
as I have... learn from my belief
that inexperience leads to grief."

Lensky took an initiative to persuade Onegin to attend Tatyana's name ceremony at the Larins, where he lived that it's just a family event. Angry with Lensky after knowing the truth that it's a rural social event, and that the guests rumored about him and Tatyana, Onegin avenged Lensky by dancing and flirting with Olga. The wounded Lensky challenged Onegin to duel. Out of convention, and despite finding the truth that it's all just a misunderstanding, Onegin and Lensky fought the duel nevertheless. There are more proofs of Onegin's egotistical which you'd find throughout the story, and which will ruin many people's lives (and himself at the end).

As I said, it's a simple story with clear message, but told beautifully by Pushkin. I admired how he highlighted each individual's personality through the stanzas, which limited dialogues.

In the end, novel in verse is still not my cup of tea, but I'm glad to have finally read it. It was so beautiful, but at the same time it was quite a struggle for me. I understood, perhaps, only 80% of the verses, and, but for the simple plot, would have abandoned it halfway through!

Rating: 3,5 / 5

Resurrection by Leo Tolstoy

After the real tough War and Peace years ago, I have sought opportunity to read (and love) more of Leo Tolstoy’s. However, I ended despising Resurrection, Tolstoy final work.

The protagonist is a nobleman, Prince Nekhlyudov. He has wronged a peasant girl, Maslova (Katushya), and got her pregnant. Ten years later Nekhlyudov is selected to be a juror in a murder case. To his surprise, the accused is Maslova, the girl he has wronged long ago. The sweet-innocent girl has fallen into prostitution; and it’s all because of him. When Maslova is sentenced to prison in Siberia, Nekhlyudov is determined to redeem his sin by following her, and even marrying her. In the process, Nekhlyudov becomes familiar with prison lives, and he witnesses many injustices commit by powerful people whom he befriended in his life pre-Maslova case. So, the process of helping Maslova also changes Nekhlyudov’s, mentally and morally.

The main critic of this book is the injustice and hypocrisy of man-made laws. Many of the prisoners in the state prison where Nekhlyudov often visits are innocent and mistreated. The authorized legal persons and the riches do not care about the prisoners. Nekhlyudov keeps wondering, how those people can be so blind to not seeing the blunder, and why this injustice keeps happening. And more importantly, what must be done to stop it.

From the theme only, this book looked promising to me, as I am always interested in social injustice topic. However, it seems to me that Tolstoy was drowned too deep into the topic, and sacrificed the style. I found it cold, boring, and almost like reading a preacher. Maybe the translation has an effect too—I read an Indonesian translation—but I also read in Wikipedia that “…Tolstoy was writing in a style that favored meaning over aesthetic quality.”

The story itself is hard to believe and artificial. From the beginning of his involvement with Maslova’s cause, Nekhlyudov has been searching for the bottom of the whole problem. He understood more than before, but was still puzzled. In the last chapter, someone has given him a pocket Bible, which he absent-mindedly put into his pocket. Later when he was in his room, and was racking his brain for THE answer, he accidentally found the pocket bible in his pocket. Then he remembered of the sayings that the Bible has the answer to every question… something like that. And so he opened it casually, and just read the chapter printed there, which was, coincidentally, Matthew 18 (and Tolstoy really put all the verses into the book.) And after Nekhlyudov read them all…. Bam! His mind opened, and suddenly he knew all the answers!

So sorry, comrade! This is just not my cup of tea. 2,5 / 5 is the final verdict. And for the time being, no more Tolstoy for me, thank you.

The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

If God does not exist, then everything is permitted—this seemed to be the central point of argument Fyodor Dostoyevsky brought up in The Brothers Karamazov. Originally intended to be a trilogy, he wrote this amazing book to follow the life of a notorious family, the Karamazovs; from the father: Fyodor Pavlovich, to the three (legitimate) sons: Dmitri, Ivan, Alyosha, and (most probably) illegitimate son: Smerdyakov. They are entangled into an intricate love-suspicion-jealousy-hatred relationship throughout the story, which lead to destruction both to (most of) themselves and to people around them.

So, how did Dostoyevsky put the above argument into this nicely-woven story? From the beginning the doubt and rejection of God and immortality scattered throughout the chapters. But the most serious one is in these two famous chapters: “Rebellion” and “The Grand Inquisitor”. In “Rebellion” Ivan poured out his disappointment of God for letting injustice and suffering happened to innocent people, apparently, for nothing. While “The Grand Inquisitor” is a poem Ivan wrote to question about free will God had imposed upon man. He believed that free will is impossible burden for mankind, because we will always have to answer to our consciences; that we will never be happy whichever path of life we choose, good or evil. If that was the case, then why wasting your energy by doing good? Is that true? Dostoyevsky let us readers judge the case by following the faith of the Karamazov brothers.

Of the three (plus one—the illegitimate) sons, Alyosha was the only one who chose “good” from the beginning. However, he too had doubt—albeit small—when his beloved Father Zosima’s corpse decomposed shortly after his death, while everyone was almost sure a miracle would happen to the saintly monk. But Alyosha soon got through his doubt. Dmitri, on the other hand, started as a scoundrel and sensualist; have plunge to the lowest, but finally managed to crawl up to the light. In the crucial moment, “something inside” ripped him from the fatal act—that is conscience.

But the most interesting case is Ivan. His “conversation” with the Devils shows how strenuous the battle of his conscience was; how bad his soul has been contaminated by evil power. Ivan was not atheist; he just did not accept God’s “interference” in human life; hence his belief of if God does not exist, then everything is permitted. That way, so he believed, man could do whatever he likes without weighing his conscience, and that would make him happy. This ideology eventually provoked a murder, and Ivan did suffer from his conscience. I’m glad though that in the end his good conscience won the battle at the end.

Moral value of this book is, that man must try first to understand God’s plan for humankind; and this must not be done with mind only, but much more with reflective soul. To logical mind, conscience did make one suffer; either when he tries to be good or, even more, when he does evil. And to be good is arduous, especially when one is born from a bad family like Karamazovs. What then? Dostoyevsky answered this by writing quite lengthy passages of Father Zosima’s speeches in the early chapters—which, I confess, seemed not to be related to the story when I read it, but made sense in the end. These passages contain some aspects that were missing from Ivan’s ideology: humility, and “all responsible for one another”—the later applied not only in evil, but also in love or good deeds. Young Zosima’s turning point moment was marked by his humility to his servant whom he has beaten the night before his planned duel. The same worked for Alyosha. Remember how Alyosha, when he was disappointed at Father Zosima’s humiliation, went to Grushenka’s, and what has made him turning toward “light” again then? Is it not after Grushenka pitied him; that Alyosha was astonished that she had pity on him—he who was nobody? Is it not a remark of humility too? Lastly, the remark of all responsible for one another appeared in Ilusha and the children story. Ilusha’s sorrow was caused by Dmitri is an example of how one evil deed to one person might cause suffer to a lot of people. The same also applies to love and good deeds.

So, Ivan’s ideology might partly be right; that free will could cause suffering. But on the other hand, it is also true that from freewill too love, charity, affection, and in the end happiness, was born.

5/5 stars for this great book; I would like to reread it someday!

Notes From Underground

Although it is a very short book, Notes From Underground is far from light reading. I have started it last year, but had to stop at first chapter as I did not get what it is about. This year my friend enticed me to read it together, as it should be a good book. I took her challenge, and braced myself to read from the beginning, to get through the point where I have stuck last year, and to keep on reading—whether I understand it or not—as I believe I will get on it eventually after some chapters. Although I could not say I like it after finishing the book, I still feel grateful that I have at least tried it. It is my first encounter with Dostoyevsky anyway, and although I didn’t enjoy Notes From Underground, I like the way he writes, and would certainly read his other novels (I have Crime and Punishment in my TBR pile already).

Notes From Underground is told from first person point of view, and written as a kind of diary of the male narrator (I will call him ‘the narrator’). The narrator is a man of forties, lives in a wretched house which he calls the underground. He is a spiteful man, and from the beginning he has been bursting spiteful expressions about everything. He does not hate someone or something in particular, but he hates the world he is living. Odd as it was, I kept reading, and only after reaching the middle part, that I began to have a clearer image about this narrator.

He feels different from others because he is more intelligent and more superior to others. I think it is because he put himself above others, that others see him strange, anti social, and expel him for good. He despises the way they live, yet he yearns to be part of them; there is a paradox and self-denying here! The narrator often pictures it as tooth-ache; you hate the pain, yet you enjoy people’s attention; you want the ache stop, yet you regret it when it stops because you’ll lose people’s attention when you are recovered.

At first I thought this book is about a political criticism, but apparently it is more psychological (and philosophical?). I think it criticizes how men always want to be independent—which he calls freedom—while in reality, he also likes to be controlled; to be in orderliness. They despise law, but at certain point they demand to be regulated by it. Men are too tied to rules and are afraid to be free. They see people who don’t live by the same rule as weird. This is what the narrator feels; just because he doesn’t agree with others’ way of life, they see him as a fly. He longs to be free but couldn’t, and that makes him a despiteful man.

The narrator knows he is at an equal level with his friends but he always resentfully surrenders to their power. He does once an experiment by not yielding when passing a gentleman, shoulder to shoulder on the street; it is very difficult for him because in the end he always involuntarily yields. The narrator also talks much about consciousness. Here are several interesting quotes that makes you think more about human and society.

"To be too conscious is an illness.”

“Man has preferred to act as he chose and not in the least as his reason and advantage dictated.”

“What man wants is simply independent choice, whatever that independence may cost and wherever it may lead.”

“Man lives to make roads and to create, but why has he such a passionate love for destruction and chaos also?”

“He loves the process of attaining, but does not quite like to have attained.”

“Through civilization mankind becomes softer.” ~ Buckle

“You boast of consciousness, but you are not sure of your ground, for though your mind works, yet your heart is darkened and corrupt, and you cannot have a full, genuine consciousness without a pure heart.”

Can you guess what all these are about? I have a vague idea, but still could not grab the whole idea. I might not reread this book, but I would certainly love to read more from Dostoyevsky.

Three stars for Notes From Underground.

~~~~~~~~

*I read ebook from Feedbooks dot com*

*This book is counted as:*

63^rd book for The Classics Club Project

War and Peace

 “History is the life of nations and of humanity.”

Leo Tolstoy dedicated War and Peace—a historical fiction which he insisted for not being a novel—to convey his ideas about history and war, which is different with what historians at that time believed. Tolstoy crafted his ideas through the lives of five aristocratic families during the French invasion of Russia by Napoleon on the early 19^th century. He took us to witness how humanity was built in battle field as well as in soirees and parties Moscow and Petersburg.

The story begins in 1805 when Russia—under the reign of Tsar Alexander I—is expecting war with French.  Then I began to know the proud and resolute Prince Andrew (Andrei) Bolkonski, and his timid and religious sister Princess Mary Bolkonskaya; the temperamental and impetuous Count Nicholas (Nikolai) Rostov, and his impulsive, restless sister, the young countess Natalya (Natasha) Rostova. There are also the very rich, absent-minded Count Pierre (Peter) Bezukhov, and the poor but ambitious Boris Drubetskoy. Throughout the book, their fates (together with so many other characters’) would be entangled one another during the turbulence era of the war. While the war is progressing—Tolstoy portrayed it very vividly as if he is reporting the battle live from the battle field—so are the characters, developing along with their sorrows and happiness, love and hatred.

My most favorite character from the beginning is Prince Andrew. He’s a man who knows what he is doing, and he’s always self-confident. *spoiler alert* Naturally, when he is falling in love with Natasha, I began to hope that the relationship would end up in a happy marriage. Well, I don’t quite like the impulsive Natasha, who always thinks about herself, but I just want Andrew to be happy. So, you can imagine how angry I was with Natasha when she decided to elope with Anatole. Seriously, how could she ever think about it at all?? OK, I understand how she must have felt, in her youth, to be separated with her fiancée for one year, to be left idle in the confinement of home, war, and the engagement bond, without anything to busy her restless mind. And she was still naïve when the sexy Anatole used his irresistible charm to her. By the way, Helene and Anatole are just the same: brainless, immoral, but charming. And people often shamefully take only the charm side, but fail to see deeper than that. And they absurdly think Helene is very clever when she is actually very stupid. Oh, people!

Sorry, back to Natasha... :) I understand how she could be attracted to Anatole. But deciding to elope with him, while she knows that it is disgraceful (or, does she really realize it?), how could she agree with the idea?  I can never understand. Tempting to do one thing is normal, but deciding it after consideration? And like Princess Mary, I was a bit hurt knowing that Natasha could fall in love with Pierre just a few weeks after Andrew’s death. Did she really love Andrew, then? Not as deep as how Andrew loved her, I think… *spoiler end*

Still about Andrew, I like it most when he is philosophizing with Pierre—who becomes his best friend. Their debates are always deep in meaning, and from them I learned a lot about life and war. I believe Andrew represents Tolstoy’s own way of seeing life and war (especially war). In one of his deep conversations with Pierre Tolstoy points out that what really moves a war into its nature is not the genius strategies or the great commanders, but the army who really involve in the battle. In it, Tolstoy wants to say that war is actually a movement of humanity (until now I still don’t know what the ‘peace’ in War and Peace stands for, do you?).

There is a gap between people who (think they) control the battle course, and people who fight in the battle. The minority of generals, commanders, etc. give commands but do not involve in the battle; while the majority of the army, who must execute the commands, really fight the battle. When historians write about a particular battle, they would only read the written plans, strategies, reports from the generals and commanders, and from them draw a conclusion that this general or that commander is genius because he can create such tactics. However, in reality, the commands are rarely be executed by the army in the battle field. Just imagine, when you are in a battle, between life and death, would you really think about your boss or even your nation? Of course not, you would first think of your own life, of surviving. It’s natural, because human’s instinct is to survive.

In the chaos of a battle, generals and commanders act and give instructions based on reports, while the army act based on their instinct. When one report being delivered to the commander, it would be considered, discussed, decided, replied, then sent back to the army. But meanwhile, the course of the battle might have changed completely, and so the instruction is not up to date anymore. In short, it is very difficult to pick one hero (or culprit) of a success or a failure in war, because there are so many circumstances that intervene the course of a war. In the end, we must realize that war is moved my humanity, not by a genius mind.

The same could be applied to any other histories. There are no coincident or magnanimity in wars or other events, but only circumstances and humanity. That’s what Tolstoy had wanted to speak through this book. Unfortunately, he took pains to explain it in the second epilogue of twelve chapters! That makes the ending feels so anti-climax, whereas he actually had slipped this philosophy of war and history throughout the story. It goes well because, while he is explaining his opinion, the readers are provided with the example in the story. So, without any further essay, we have understood what he conveys very well. Closing it on the first epilogue would be much better than stretching the epilogue twelve more chapters full of repeating frowning-explanations!

For all that, I attached four and a half stars for War and Peace. I love Tolstoy writing and usage of so beautiful metaphors, but I’m disappointed in the closing. For me closing passage or lines are what echoes from the book long after I finish it. While I might have forgotten the opening, the closing is what I bring back with me to reality.

~~~~~~~~

I read Wordsworth Classics paperback edition

*This book is counted as:*

6^th book for Read Big! Reading Challenge

6^th book for Back To The Classics 2013

50^th book for The Classics Club Project

5th book for Historical Fiction Challenge

1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die

The Cherry Orchard – Final Review

For Let’s Read Plays – other author theme of July, I have picked Anton Chekhov. Chekhov is actually more famous with his short stories; he is actually the father of short story writing in Europe. I have once read one of his short stories, and have caught his clear, sharp, and deep method of writing. And I thought it would be interesting to see whether his play was written in the same style. I picked The Cherry Orchard, in particular, as it is listed on my WEM self project. I have worked on the Act summaries, as well as the stage inquiries: the first and the second level.

The Cherry Orchard tells the story within the Ranevskys’ household. The famous cherry orchard itself located within the Ranevskys estate; and said to be one of the most beautiful places on earth. It might be exaggerated—as a cherry orchard should looks just as other cherry orchards—but it certainly kept the secrets and history of the family for many generations, which creates a special bound between the orchard and the residents; the cherry orchard looks beautiful because it bears many memorable events of the past. And now the Ravenskys must let their estate go, as it would be sold in an auction to pay their debts.

This play’s main conflicts lay on the cherry orchard’s sale, as each of the characters’ future would be depended on the sale. There are people who detest the idea; Lubov Andreyevna—the present owner—a widowed mother, who has been abroad for five years before finally returns to Russia. Lubov cannot think of leaving, as she would be like being cut off from her history by that. On the other hand, Lopakhin—a businessman, son of the estate’s old slave but later on was raised by the family—insists that the cherry orchard must be cut down, so that a villa can be built on it. Trofimov—a family teacher—is pleased with the idea of moving from the estate, and is excited to welcome the future together with Anya, Lubov’s daughter. While for Varya—Lubov’s adopted daughter—it would be a total ruin, as she would loose her job besides her home.

To read this play as only portraying what it performs, would be very deceiving. At first, you would think that the whole play is only the fuss around losing a family estate and moving away. But if you read between the lines, you would find Chekhov’s idea or critics on how Russians see the upcoming waves of change. At the time Chekhov wrote this, modernism was entering Russia, and the old values are struggling to survive (this play was first performed on 1904). Each character here stands for certain idea which reflects the contrast between people who are with modernism versus people who keep holding on the Old Russian values.

In the play, you’d see many incoherent dialogs or scenes within the Acts which makes the plot seems won’t go anywhere. Actually the first four Acts feels flat and overstretched, you would be asking yourself, what does Chekhov wanted to say, really? Just keep reading, because in Act Five Chekhov would change the gear, and the acceleration is suddenly increasing towards a climax. And lo! The ending would be very surprising, if not shocking. After the curtain has been down, you would sit still, struck, and couldn’t believe that the play has ended, and that ‘that’ would be the end! And then, you would reflect the whole play, of the pieces of incoherent dialogs and scenes, and suddenly, every piece would makes sense, as if the play is a huge puzzle game. By reflecting it, you would also see what Chekhov has wanted to tell you beneath the flat story. And finally, you would see the genius brain of the author who could present his ideas in this play!

Four and a half stars for The Cherry Orchard, as although I sometimes feel uncomfortable with the sudden changes in scenes or immediate incoherent interruption, the language is beautiful, and I love Chekhov’s detailed description of the background settings.

~~~~~~~~

*I read ebook version from Gutenberg Project*

*This book is counted as:*

Let’s Read Plays (July) theme: Other Author

49^th book for The Classics Club Project

Doctor Zhivago

Nama yang menjadi judul buku ini merupakan sisa-sisa kenangan masa kecilku. Entah pada usia berapa, aku ingat pernah diajak menonton bioskop oleh kedua orangtuaku. Ingatan samar-samarku hanya berisi judul film itu—Doctor Zhivago, tokoh utama prianya yang berkumis tebal (kelak aku tahu pemerannya adalah Omar Sharif), dan adegan—entah awal atau akhir film—seseorang berlari di tengah kemuningnya ladang. Yang paling jelas kuingat justru theme song film ini, yakni lagu Somewhere My Love. Setelah aku dewasa, aku baru mengetahui bahwa film Doctor Zhivago diambil dari sebuah buku yang ditulis Boris Pasternak. Dan kini, lebih dari 30 tahun setelah nonton film itu, barulah aku memiliki kesempatan untuk membaca bukunya.

Doctor Zhivago bersetting di Rusia pada awal abad 20, tepatnya setelah Perang Dunia I. Kisah dibuka dengan sebuah pemakaman. Saat itu Zhivago kecil menjadi yatim piatu setelah ibunya meninggal, sementara ayahnya sudah lebih dulu tiada. Yura—panggilan Zhivago kecil—kemudian diantar oleh pamannya menuju kediaman orang tua angkatnya: keluarga Gromeko. Kemudian kisah berpindah ke sudut pandang seorang bocah teman sekolah Yura yang bernama Misha Gordon. Misha sedang mengingat-ingat kejadian tragis bunuh dirinya seorang pria di kereta api yang ia tumpangi bersama keluarganya. Ternyata pria itu adalah seorang pengusaha bernama Zhivago, yang tak lain dan tak bukan ayah si Yura kecil.

Dari kedua intro itu, kita bisa mulai mengenal gaya bertutur Boris Pasternak. Ia bercerita dari sudut pandang banyak orang, kadang berupa dialog panjang, kadang narasi. Di tiap bab kita akan dihadapkan pada berbagai pertanyaan. Seolah-olah ada begitu banyak kepingan-kepingan puzzle yang tak beraturan dan tak berhubungan. Dan semuanya itu ia jalin sedemikian rupa hingga pelan-pelan terjawablah semua pertanyaan dan terbangunlah sebuah kisah yang menawan.

Kembali ke kisah awal, selain Yura dan Misha, kita pun diperkenalkan pada beberapa tokoh penting lainnya. Ada Tonia (putri keluarga Gromeko) yang kelak menikah dengan Yura—menjadi Yurii Zhivago setelah dewasa. Lalu Lara (Larisa Feodorovna—nama yang cantik bukan?) gadis cantik yang terlalu cepat dewasa dan terlibat affair dengan pengacara keluarga dan pacar ibunya: Komarovsky. Ada juga Pasha, pemuda yang juga tinggal di rumah keluarga di mana Lara tinggal. Lara akhirnya menikahi Pasha dalam kekalutannya akibat hubungannya dengan Komarovsky.

Awalnya kisah mereka tampak tak berhubungan, baru di bab 2 lah Pasternak “mempertemukan” mereka semua dalam sebuah insiden. Setelah itu pecahlah revolusi di Petersburg—yang menurunkan Tsar—dan dimulailah perubahan besar-besaran bagi rakyat Rusia, yang diwakili oleh tokoh-tokoh kita. Melalui mereka semua, kita bisa melihat bagaimana rakyat yang tak bersalah mau tak mau terseret dalam arus perubahan yang dibawa kelompok-kelompok radikal. Bukan saja menjadi miskin secara fisik, namun perang juga memporak-porandakan keluarga.

Pasha bergabung dengan militer karena kecewa dengan perkawinannya. Yurii telah menjadi dokter dan bertugas di Medical Unit. Saat istrinya tengah melahirkan di rumah sakit, Yurii terkena ledakan. Dan ketika siuman, ia dipertemukan dengan Lara yang bekerja sebagai perawat di Rumah Sakit di mana Yurii dirawat. Di titik ini cinta pun tumbuh. Yurii yang sudah sejak kecil memuja Lara meski tetap setia pada Tonia, dan Lara yang mendengar isu bahwa Pasha telah tewas dan baru menyadari bahwa ia tak sepenuhnya mencintai Pasha.

Dari curahan hati Yurii kepada Lara sebelum mereka berpisah, kita dapat memahami apa yang dialami manusia saat perang, yaitu bahwa mereka mau tak mau telah berubah (atau dipaksa berubah oleh perang). Yurii kembali ke Moskow karena tak tahan dengan revolusi, mencoba untuk menemukan kembali hidupnya yang lama bersama Tonia dan putranya: Sasha. Ternyata saat itulah Sovyet akhirnya menguasai Rusia, dan di musim dingin yang tak bersahabat, bencana kemiskinan menghadang. Keluarga Zhivago pun memutuskan untuk pindah ke sebuah kota kecil Varykino.

Akankah Yurii, sang doctor Zhivago mampu menyelamatkan keluarganya? Dapatkah ia--yang telah berubah dalam pribadi dan pemikiran--menjalani kembali hidup yang sama seperti sebelum perang? Bagaimana dengan cintanya yang terbagi antara Tonia dan Lara? Mengapa sebenarnya Yurii mencintai Lara? Dan bagaimana dengan nasib Lara sendiri? Dengan amat perlahan Boris Pastermak akan membawa anda menemukan jawaban-jawabannya, sampai pada akhir kisah ini, yang boleh dibilang tragis namun indah.

Lewat Doctor Zhivago, Pasternak hendak menyoroti efek-efek negatif perubahan yang sedang terjadi di negara Rusia. Seperti kita ketahui, begitu Perang Dunia I usai, kaum proletarian menggulingkan rezim Tsar. Pemerintahan monarki pun tumbang, namun dalam gejolak saat itu—saat di mana belum jelas siapa yang akan berkuasa—seluruh rakyat Rusia turut menderita dalam jungkir baliknya kondisi negara.

“All customs and traditions, all our way of life, everything to do with home and order, has crumbled into dust in the general upheaval and reorganization of society. The whole human way of life has been destroyed and ruined.” ~hlm. 421 (Lara)

“The war is to blame for everything, for all the misfortunes that followed and that hound our generation to this day.” ~hlm. 422 (Lara).

Doctor Zhivago adalah kisah tentang percintaan dan tragedi yang dihadapi manusia. Namun jangan membayangkan nuansa gelap selalu menaungi kisah ini, karena dengan lihainya Pasternak menghujani kita dengan metafora-metafora indah di sepanjang buku ini. Metafora itu membuat hal-hal nan sederhana menjadi terasa begitu indah. Aku kutip beberapa agar anda bisa merasakan sedikit keindahan yang membuatku jatuh cinta pada buku ini!

“It was a clear, frosty autumn night. Thin sheets of ice crumbled under his steps. The sky, shining with stars, threw a pale blue flicker like the flame of burning alcohol over the black earth with its clumps of frozen mud.” ~hlm. 113.

“In the foreshortened view from the bunk it looked as if the train were actually gliding on the water. Only here and there was its smoothness broken by streaks of a metallic blue, but over all the rest of its surface the hot morning sun was chasing glassy patches of light as smooth and oily as melted butter that a cook brushes with a feather on a pie crust.” ~hlm. 246.

Bisakah anda membayangkan pemandangan yang melahirkan untaian kalimat seindah itu? Itulah sebabnya diperlukan waktu yang lama dan suasana yang mendukung untuk membaca buku ini. Bila anda membacanya tergesa-gesa dan hanya mengambil inti cerita saja, anda akan melewatkan banyak keindahan—yang menjadi kekuatan utama buku ini.

Empat bintang untuk Doctor Zhivago, kuhadiahkan kepada Boris Pasternak yang—andai beliau masih hidup—tengah berulang tahun ke 122 tahun tepat pada hari ini, 10 Februari 2012!

Pada akhirnya, perang dan revolusi itu selalu menghasilkan penderitaan, namun toh keduanya diperlukan demi membangun sesuatu yang lebih baik di masa depan: kebebasan. Seperti yang dikatakan Boris Pasternak dalam epilog:

“Although victory had not brought the relief and freedom that were expected at the end of the war, nevertheless the portents of freedom filled the air throughout the postwar period, and they alone defined its historical significance.” ~hlm. 544.

versi film th. 1965 dengan Omar Sharif sebagai Dr. Zhivago & Julie Christie sebagai Lara

Judul: Doctor Zhivago

Penulis: Boris Pasternak

Penerbit: Pantheon Books, Inc.

e-book source: The New American Library

Terbit: unknown

e-pages: 615 hlm

Di Mana Ada Cinta, Di Sana Tuhan Ada

Judul: Di Mana Ada Cinta, Di Sana Tuhan Ada

Penulis: Leo Tolstoy

Penerbit: Serambi

Penerjemah: Atta Verin

Cetakan: Februari 2011

Tebal: 197 hlm

“Ketika Aku lapar, kamu memberi aku makan. Ketika Aku haus, kamu memberi aku minum. Ketika Aku seorang asing, kamu memberi Aku tumpangan….” --Mat 25:35

“Sesungguhnya segala sesuatu yang kamu lakukan untuk salah seorang dari saudaraKu yang paling hina ini, kamu telah melakukannya untuk Aku.” –Mat 25:40

Kedua ayat Kitab Suci itu langsung memenuhi pikiranku saat aku selesai membaca kisah pertama dalam buku kumpulan cerita bertema cinta spiritual karya sastrawan besar Rusia Leo Tolstoy ini. Sebenarnya ayat itu bahkan tidak dicantumkan dalam cerita itu, namun aku langsung menemukan kesamaan dengan esensi ceritanya. Di Mana Ada Cinta, Di Sana Tuhan Ada. Demikianlah judul kisah pertama di buku ini, yang sekaligus menjadi judul buku ini sendiri. Berkisah tentang seorang perajin sepatu bernama Martin, yang merasa kesepian setelah ditinggal mati istri dan putra semata wayangnya. Ia lalu mengalami kehampaan dalam hidupnya, berhenti pergi ke Gereja dan malah mengomel pada Tuhan karena mengambil putranya terlebih dahulu alih-alih mengambil dirinya. Hingga suatu hari ia kedatangan tamu dari biara yang menasihatinya untuk mulai membaca Kitab Suci. Dan kedamaian pun perlahan-lahan mulai bersemi dalam hati Martin tiap kali ia membaca sabda Tuhan.

Hingga suatu hari ia berandai-andai, apakah yang akan dilakukannya bila Tuhan sendiri bertamu ke rumahnya? Lalu dalam tidur, ia memimpikan Tuhan memanggil namanya, dan mengatakan bahwa Ia akan datang keesokan harinya. Maka begitu pagi menjelang, Martin pun mulai menanti-nantikan “Tamu Istimewa”nya itu. Ia yang biasa mengenali warga dengan mengintip sepatu mereka dari ambang jendela, terus menerus menunggu. Banyak orang yang melewati rumahnya, namun tak seorang pun yang berhenti, apalagi singgah. Orang pertama yang berdiri di luar di depan jendelanya adalah seorang pembantu rumah yang kedinginan saat menyekop salju. Merasa iba, Martin mengajak si pembantu rumah itu masuk dan menyuguhkan teh untuk memberinya kehangatan. Dan sambil si pembantu menikmati bercangkir-cangkir teh hangat, Martin juga menghangatkan jiwanya dengan kata-katanya tentang Tuhan yang ia ambil dari kitab suci. Si pembantu pun kembali ke dinginnya salju untuk bekerja, namun kini dengan tubuh maupun hati yang lebih hangat…

Sepanjang hari Martin menunggu, namun tak satupun tamu yang datang, apalagi yang bisa disebut “Istimewa”. Yang ada malah seorang wanita dengan bayi di gendongannya yang tampak kedinginan di balik pakaiannya yang tipis, sedang berdiri di luar rumah Martin. Maka Martin pun mengundang wanita itu masuk untuk menghangatkan diri. Bersama roti dan sup hangat yang dihidangkan Martin, wanita itu bertutur tentang kemalangan dirinya yang ditinggal suaminya perang, dan kini jatuh miskin, bahkan selendang untuk menghangatkan diripun harus ia gadaikan sehingga kini mereka berdua harus kedinginan di jalanan. Martin memberinya uang sekadarnya untuk bisa menebus kembali selendangnya, dan membekalinya mantel usang untuk dapat melindunginya dan si bayi dari kedinginan.

Dan begitulah, ternyata hari itu berlalu tanpa ada yang istimewa sama sekali. Hanya kejadian-kejadian kecil semacam itu yang membuat Martin berinteraksi dengan orang-orang asing yang ditolongnya. Entah itu untuk memberikan kehangatan raga, kehangatan jiwa, maupun untuk belajar mengampuni dan berdamai dengan orang lain. Lalu bagaimana dengan “Tamu Istimewa” yang berjanji akan mengunjunginya? Maka akupun teringat kembali pada ayat Kitab Suci yang aku kutip di awal tulisan ini. Dan kembali aku serasa diingatkan (lagi)… bahwa Tuhan tak perlu dicari-cari, ia hadir dalam diri setiap orang yang membutuhkan kita. Setiap hari. Setiap saat. Hanya tinggal kitalah yang peka untuk menyadarinya, dan bertindak. Sebuah kisah yang sederhana namun sangat berkesan bagiku.

Itu barulah kisah pertama dalam buku kumpulan cerita ini. Dalam 4 cerita selanjutnya pun, anda akan diajak untuk melihat indahnya kasih. Kasih bisa berwujud maaf, seperti terungkap dalam kisah kedua: Tuhan Tahu, Tapi Menunggu, yang bercerita tentang seorang saudagar bernama Aksionov yang ditangkap dan dipenjara dengan tuduhan membunuh teman sepenginapannya saat ia sedang bepergian. Cinta juga menampakkan wajahnya kepada seorang saudagar kaya bernama Vasili, yang pikirannya selalu dipenuhi dengan bisnisnya dan kebanggaan dirinya yang sukses berbisnis. Suatu hari ia harus bepergian di tengah badai salju yang membekukan, bersama dengan pembantunya, Nikita. Di saat itulah Tuhan “memanggilnya” lewat kejadian yang tak masuk akal. Vasili yang berkereta kuda bersama Nikita tak pernah dapat menemukan jalan sehingga harus tersesat di tengah badai salju dan terancam mati membeku. Saat itulah Vasili harus memilih. Apakah ia akan tetap memikirkan dirinya sendiri, atau membiarkan Tuhan mengambil alih? Sekali lagi kita menyadari, bahwa di mana ada cinta, di sana Tuhan ada. Keseluruhan kisahnya bisa anda baca di kisah no. 4: Majikan dan Pelayan.

Kisah penutup atau kisah kelima mungkin yang paling tegas menjelaskan pada kita, bagaimana Tuhan menginginkan kita untuk menjalani hidup ini dan mengisinya. Di kisah Dua Lelaki Tua ini, adalah Efim dan Elisha, dua pria tua yang ingin pergi berziarah ke Yerusalem bersama-sama. Efim adalah pria yang selalu mengkhawatirkan segalanya, dan menginginkan semuanya sempurna. Kalau saja bukan karena desakan Elisha yang lebih santai, Efim mungkin takkan pernah berangkat ziarah karena sibuk dengan ini-itu yang tak habis-habisnya. Sayangnya, walaupun berangkat bersama-sama, kedua lelaki tua ini harus berpisah jalan tanpa sengaja ketika Elisha singgah di sebuah rumah untuk sejenak memuaskan dahaganya dengan meminta segelas air. Di titik ini Leo Tolstoy ingin menunjukkan pada kita ziarah seperti apa yang sebenarnya lebih berkenan bagi Tuhan, dan bahwa ziarah itu sejatinya terjadi di sepanjang hidup kita tanpa terkecuali. Hidup kita ini adalah sebuah peziarahan. Apakah kita ingin mendapat hasil yang baik dari ziarah ini, itu adalah pilihan kita. Yang jelas, Tuhan telah menyediakan “sarana”nya, yakni lewat sesama kita, tinggal kitalah yang mau memilih memanfaatkannya sebaik mungkin, atau melewatkannya…

Buku yang diterbitkan oleh Serambi ini, bagiku merupakan salah satu buku yang isinya sederhana, namun isinya akan selalu meresap hingga ke relung-relung jiwa yang paling dalam. Cara bercerita Leo Tolstoy telah membuat kisah-kisah sederhana itu menjadi hidup berkat kemampuannya merangkai detail-detail yang sangat cermat menjadi sebuah cerita yang mengalir, sehingga kita seolah merasa mengalami atau melihat sendiri semua kejadian di kisah itu. Bravo Leo Tolstoy! Dan untuk itu aku memberikan 5 bintang untuk karya ini!